Talk:John Boswell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
I don't have time tonight to finish this, but please let's not make a one-sided article. Let's not turn Wikipedia into advocacy of the sort that "suddenly discovers that all along homosexuality wasn't really a sin, because the ancient church clearly approved it."
One scholar interprets the icons and rituals one way; another can interpret another way. Hardly a smoking gun.
Besides, an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a "disinterested" source. We must at least take into account the possibility of self-justification here. --Ed Poor
- How does that differ from heterosexuals making anti-gay comments or disagreeing with Boswell's claims? What makes them disinterested? -- Zoe
-
- What's an "anti-gay" comment? And are you dividing the scholarly world into (A) heterosexual and (B) openly gay? (Sounds like the fallacy of the excluded middle to me :-) Ed Poor
- I don't think I need to list what anti-gay comments. They're all over the place. You might want to visit the Reverend Shelton's website, whose URL I will not repeat here. I wasn't dividing the world, you were. -- Zoe
-
- Creating divisions is one of the biggest sins in the Unification Church, so I better stop doing it. Sorry, Zoe. --Ed Poor
[edit] Mess
Poorly marked up, with two virtually identical versions, not an article about John Boswell, but about Boswell's research on the subject of another article, Christian views of homosexuality, this article is a mess. Ortolan88 17:35 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)
- I agree completely, Ortolan. It's almost as bad as the homophobia article. I hope I have time in the next 3 hours to fix up the adelphiosis thing, otherwise better writers than I will be stuck with the chore. --Ed Poor
[edit] Interest
"an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a "disinterested" source"
- Because straight people are completely impartial on the subject of sexual orientation, because straight people have no sexual orientation, I suppose. Just like only white people should write black history. Really, Ed, I expected better from you. - montréalais
Well, I could claim that "disinterested" and "impartial" aren't exactly the same, but I'd rather just apologize. Sorry, I messed up the article. And I concede that "straight" people can be crooked, dishonest, selfish -- and did I mention devious, twisted and narrow? --Ed Poor
- To be fair to Ed, everyone reading the above quote should realize he meant that, "an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a 'disinterested' source [on gay history]."
- Still, this is a questionable statement. I would argue that the interest a gay man would have in this area is a plus, not a minus. Firstly because his "interests" are positive, for example increasing safety, and because otherwise how or why else would he be knowledgable in that area?
- The question is not does this create "interest" or bias, but does this create inaccuracies? For it certainly does create bias (for example, in California being honest about one's romantic tendancies, "coming out", is often interpreted by the courts as a political statement itself). The idea, though, that a historian at Yale would make up facts or promote false interpretations of those facts in order to advance, in the short term, a cause so personally important, in the long term, seems ridiculous. Hyacinth 00:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] References
Aren't there any references to Boswell as an historic figure, rather than diatribes supporting or attacking his research?
- Please sign questions and comments, thanks. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for more information. Hyacinth 00:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Freemasonry
John Boswell (the Laird of Auchinlech) in the year 1600 became the first non-operative (or 'accepted') Mason. He became a member of the Lodge of Edinburgh in Scotland.
